There is plenty of real science and good argument from skeptics.
Then it hasn't been posted here.
Most things posted here are from the Daily Mail (The Guardian? some British rag in any case) that is notorious for distorting the issue.
Many of the other arguments, particularly as they pertain to arctic/Antarctic sea ice, are easily shot to hell with a quick google search because the argument only works by being ignorant of things like volume or mass compared to surface area.
Finally, most of the arguments are stupid quips about "sure is cold here today, warming schmarming" or "the climate has always cycled" or some other painfully obviously wrong clap trap.
Oh my favorite of all time, however, is when climatologists who agree with warming models are subjected to character assassination (you know, the usual like "they'll say anything for grant money" or "more alarmism to keep the grants flowing"), as if anyone who agrees with it professionally is clearly a shyster producing whatever data the government tells them to produce so they can keep getting paid. And it doesn't stop there, to hear some arguments the entire system is a giant conspiracy full of crooks and liars looking to make federal grant money. Peer review? Crooked. Grant application processes? Crooked. Universities? Liberal indoctrinating cesspools that will do anything for money to keep up the flow of young, impressionable minds to warp.
But once an actual scientist publishes something that appears to have actual data against GW, suddenly peer reviewed science is the cat's meow. The scientist's credentials, particularly if they're from a reputable institution, are splashed around as greatly important. My favorites were the stories where the studies were reanalysis of NASA data, when even NASA was presented in a favorable light.
In other words, the skeptic's data that I've seen presented is usually shot to hell by the field and the skeptics are suddenly not skeptics anymore, at all, when something is published they agree with. Blatant connections to industry? Nah, there couldn't possibly be a money motive in published that one. Published in a peer reviewed journal? Of course it isn't crooked, this is real science.
Eyes closed and fingers in ears is not a good way to form an opinion.
Neither is refusing to assess one's opinion after being shown repeatedly that they wrong, ignorant and scientifically illiterate.